R v Ariki - [2015] NZHC 3240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI 2015-054-1049 [2015] NZHC 3240

THE QUEEN

v

HENDRIX VIA ARIKI

Hearing: 16 December 2015

Counsel:

D R Davies and N Wynne for Crown
P L Murray and A Whittaker for Defendant

Sentence:

16 December 2015

SENTENCE OF BROWN J

Introduction

[1] Mr Ariki, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand.

[2] You appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty on 24 November 2015 to one count of manslaughter of the deceased John Tui Anderson.

[3] You sought a sentencing indication through your counsel and on

11 November 2015 following an oral hearing, I gave you an indication. You accepted that indication on 18 November 2015.

[4] Before turning to the details of sentencing I want first to acknowledge all the members of the family of Mr Anderson who are in Court today.

R v ARIKI [2015] NZHC 3240 [16 December 2015]

[5] In particular I want to acknowledge the courage of the victim impact statements which the Court received from Mr Anderson’s mother, his sister Eileen and his brother Waylon. In any case involving death in this type of context, the wider family will be tragically affected. The present case is no exception. And particularly sadly two young children have lost their father.

Facts

[6] The deceased has two children with his ex partner Ms Davis and maintained a relationship with all of them, often visiting their home address in Palmerston North.

[7] At the date of the incident you were in a relationship with Ms Davis who was pregnant with your child. You were not residing in the Palmerston North address but did visit regularly.

[8] You knew the deceased. Indeed you were second cousins. However the two of you had not met face-to-face since your relationship with Ms Davis began.

[9] Prior to the night of 6 April 2015 you had received indirect threats of violence via Ms Davis but there was no evidence of any direct threat having being made by Mr Anderson towards you.

Circumstances

[10] On the evening of 6 April 2015, you were at the Palmerston North address. Also present was Ms Davis, her four year old daughter and her 23 year old sister.

[11] You were drinking in an attached garage and came inside at about 9.30 pm. You went into the master bedroom where Ms Davis was exchanging text messages with Mr Anderson. Mr Anderson knew that you were at the address. Ms Davis told you that he was outside at the address.

[12] You looked out the master bedroom window and you saw him approaching the address. You went into the kitchen and picked up a large kitchen knife with a

blade that measured approximately 20 centimetres. You then returned to the master bedroom and stood beside and slightly behind the open bedroom door.

[13] When Mr Anderson entered the bedroom, using the knife you had got from the kitchen, you stabbed him once in the abdomen.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Ariki

Details

AGLC: R v Ariki [2015] NZHC 3240
Case: [2015] NZHC 3240
Decision Date: 16 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v ARIKI involved the sentencing of Hendrix via Ariki for the manslaughter of John Tui Anderson. Hendrix pleaded guilty to the charge, and the court considered the appropriate sentence following a sentencing indication provided earlier. The key issues for the court were to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing and the extent of any mitigating factors that should be considered. The Crown argued for a starting point of nine years' imprisonment based on the use of a knife, the serious injury resulting in death, and the unprovoked nature of the attack. The defence contended for a starting point of five to six years' imprisonment, considering the use of a knife and the resulting death as aggravating factors, and arguing for additional mitigating factors including remorse and pre-existing bail conditions.

The court ultimately decided that the appropriate starting point was eight years' imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence but not considering the attack as extreme violence or premeditated. The court acknowledged mitigating factors such as the defendant's remorse, good conduct, and time spent on electronically monitored bail. Applying a 15% discount for these factors, and a further 25% discount for the guilty plea, the court sentenced Hendrix to five years and one month's imprisonment. This decision balanced the need to hold the defendant accountable for the harm caused with the mitigating factors presented.

The final orders of the court were that Hendrix via Ariki be sentenced to five years and one month's imprisonment for the manslaughter of John Tui Anderson, taking into account the mitigating factors presented by the defence and the aggravating factors outlined by the Crown.

Orders